What don't you understand? It's just human culture - a 'thing' gets associations, and over time those associations become desirable.

So you're not buying the truck because you need a truck - the three seat, long box, bare bones thing. You're buying it because you're a straight-talking, upright, outdoorsy independent... etc.

Except you also have a family, so you need 5 seats. And you're 40 so you want luxuries. And the payment is only $450 a month.

Someone asked a question the other day about 'what do you consider your luxury purchases' (this was on reddit I think), and I didn't answer because my thought was: the meaning of the word has gone. Everything we have is luxurious - instant hot water, fridges, everything. Central heating.

What's to understand? Car companies are there to make money; to do that they must convince people to give them money. They design stuff and market it, marketing drives sales. Have you seen how many big fucking chrome GMC, Chevy, Ford, Dodge adverts there are on every commercial break on North American TV? How constant the 'are you tired of that three year old vehicle on your driveway' ads are on the radio? Oh my god.

You're buying a truck because you wanted one when you were 18 but you have a family, and because the TV and radio and newspapers and bill boards all tell you you want one.

Who the flip wants to spend $60K+ on a pickup truck and the load a bunch of gravel into the bed? Or firewood? Or dirt?

After the interior of the bed is scratched - well, that truck is ruined! Send it to the crusher!

I've owned pickup trucks. My favorite was the pickup truck that apparently everyone's Daddy owned at some point. It had a heater and brakes and a steering wheel. Not much else b/c it was designed to be used as a truck. Every time I drove it someone wanted to talk about it b/c it had enough age on it that it stood out.

If i were to buy a new pickup truck I'd likely need to buy something from a third world country like a Mahindra so it was plain and basic and all about getting the work done, not gallivanting around a country club.

I've never understood the luxury car market, especially luxury trucks. What's the point? If you not hauling stuff then why bother. Trucks are meant to get dirty and scratched and whatnot.

There are, however, features that do drive up the price that make sense to a point. 4WD features - some people need them. Tow package - depends what you're towing. But the key, especially with a truck, is to buy used. Let someone else eat the initial depreciation (really back on trucks), let them stress about the first few scratches.

But then again, from my POV all new car prices are silly. You can easily spend close to $40k on a Subaru Outback. Ok, it has AWD, but limited cargo/tow capacity. However, a used Ram 1500 Ecodiesel gets 27 mpg highway, roughly the same as an Outback. But the virtual signal value is way lower :)

Don't even get me started on vintage Westfalia/Vanagon vehicles. Outrageously overpriced and terrible MPG (like 14-18), terrible performance, almost nil cargo/tow capacity. Yet many around here think these are cool!

Here's what I don't understand; how the $*!^ have we allowed pickup trucks and SUV - which make up 2/3rds of the US auto market - to escape the more stringent fuel efficiency standards given to sedans and other cars. Especially when something like 90% of these cars are never used for anything other than passenger transportation.

Yeah, yeah... the answer is 'effective lobbying' - but there's no damn reason why pickups can continue to be sold in this country with sub-20mpg fuel efficiency. We could mandate 30mpg from trucks and they would *still* have more power than the pickups of a generation ago.

Yeah, yeah... the answer is 'effective lobbying' - but there's no damn reason why pickups can continue to be sold in this country with sub-20mpg fuel efficiency. We could mandate 30mpg from trucks and they would *still* have more power than the pickups of a generation ago.

Many (most?) of the newer 1/2 ton pickups on the road today get > 20 mpg highway, some far better even city/highway combined. The bigger naturally aspirated V8s don't fair as well. Of course, heavier duty pickups (3/4 ton, 1 ton, etc.) are less efficient, but you can't get the carry/tow capacities up without also beefing up the vehicle.

Yeah, yeah... the answer is 'effective lobbying' - but there's no damn reason why pickups can continue to be sold in this country with sub-20mpg fuel efficiency. We could mandate 30mpg from trucks and they would *still* have more power than the pickups of a generation ago.

Many (most?) of the newer 1/2 ton pickups on the road today get > 20 mpg highway, some far better even city/highway combined. The bigger naturally aspirated V8s don't fair as well. Of course, heavier duty pickups (3/4 ton, 1 ton, etc.) are less efficient, but you can't get the carry/tow capacities up without also beefing up the vehicle.

Yes, IMHO we shouldn't allow such vehicles to be sold for non-commercial purposes.

Folks with horses or other big loads to haul would disagree. I'm skeptical of government's ability to determine acceptable use for such things, there are too many interests, needs, etc. that don't necessarily fall within the commercial sphere. What's next, do we disallow international air travel for non commercial reasons? Besides, if things were limited to commercial vehicles those really wanting them will just go through the steps needed to get commercial classification.

EDIT: If you mean the naturally aspirated 1/2 ton trucks that get less than 20 mpg, well I sort of agree, though I think a tax that makes these more (or equally) expensive to the smaller turbocharged engines would make more sense.

Folks with horses or other big loads to haul would disagree. I'm skeptical of government's ability to determine acceptable use for such things, there are too many interests, needs, etc. that don't necessarily fall within the commercial sphere. What's next, do we disallow international air travel for non commercial reasons? Besides, if things were limited to commercial vehicles those really wanting them will just go through the steps needed to get commercial classification.

EDIT: If you mean the naturally aspirated 1/2 ton trucks that get less than 20 mpg, well I sort of agree, though I think a tax that makes these more (or equally) expensive to the smaller turbocharged engines would make more sense.

I think ending CAFE and instituting a real carbon tax would make the most sense.

Folks with horses or other big loads to haul would disagree. I'm skeptical of government's ability to determine acceptable use for such things, there are too many interests, needs, etc. that don't necessarily fall within the commercial sphere. What's next, do we disallow international air travel for non commercial reasons? Besides, if things were limited to commercial vehicles those really wanting them will just go through the steps needed to get commercial classification.

EDIT: If you mean the naturally aspirated 1/2 ton trucks that get less than 20 mpg, well I sort of agree, though I think a tax that makes these more (or equally) expensive to the smaller turbocharged engines would make more sense.

For a bit of perspective, you're talking to someone who uses a silverado 2500HD v8 Diesel at work to transfer heavy equipment and boats across the state. I'm also aware that there's a ton of people who think they need such a large vehicle, and many contractors who actually do. I would support requiring a CDL for these larger vehicles. As I see it the problem is that we've set fuel efficiency standards for some very good reasons, but then we've kept open this huge loophole for pickups. About half the trucks on the road are pickups and of those something like 90% of those are never used for anything more rigorous than carting people around on paved roads. I'm also skeptical of this argument that people need these big pickups for hobbies and home projects, etc. THe half-ton, V6 pickups today can tow more and carry a bigger payload than largest trucks available back in the 80s - yet people in the 70s/80s/90s still moved horses and boats around with much less powerful trucks. If you really need to tow a 5+ton trailer (which some V6s are now rated for) or put a ton of material in your bed you've entered into commercial driving territory, and you should be restricted and regulated as such.

I'll just say my aim isn't to curtail people who actually need a pickup truck's capacities, and I realize requiring a CDL would be a burden on them. But letting the majority of pickup and large SUV users have lower fuel standards than the rest of us when they don't need that functionality is just needlessly trashing our planet.*Half-ton/3/4-ton/one-ton pickups used to mean something, namely that was the max payload (+/- ~10%) that you could put into the bed. But trucks have become so powerful in the last two decades that **every** 1/2 ton is rated to carry at least 1500lbs, and the 3/4 tons are eclipsing 3000lbs (1.5 tons).

My Prius with a hitch and a small 1000-lb capacity trailer hauls literally everything I could possibly need to carry, and I'm an avid DIYer who regularly hauls sizable loads from the hardware store. I'm so glad that MMM opened my eyes to the possibility that I might not actually need a pickup truck!. That one article has saved me more money than any single page I've ever read.

No, you don't need a pickup to tow a tiny aluminum boat to go fishing. I'm well aware that there are many people driving huge trucks/SUVs around who don't need them. That's quite different, however, than saying no one has a legitimate use.* Bigger boats (around here we have ocean going vessels), gooseneck trailers, or heavy loads. If you're moving more than 5000 lbs you're more or less limited to a pickup/SUV.

That said, I'm all for policy to nudge people in a better direction. IMO the CDL route is too heavy handed, think a tax is more appropriate. But whatever, difference of opinion.

If the goal is reducing GHG (rather than lashing out at symbols of the culture war) then the number one thing we can and should do in the US is build denser cities - especially along the West Coast. What good does it do to drive around in a Tesla while insisting on suburban level density? This leads to urban sprawl and super commutes for many thousands of the less well off. Oh, right, we can feel smug in our elitism while enjoying our exclusive leafy neighborhoods. Dense cities result in less driving for everyone, and they also encourage smaller vehicles. Yet here I sit, in one of the supposedly "greenest" cities in the US, advocating for higher density while most of my neighbors fight to stop all development. It's messed up.

*About legitimate use: Does anyone need horses, or a big boat, or any other hobby requiring a big vehicle? Strictly speaking, no. But by definition no one "needs" any particular hobby or leisure activity. So if that's going to be the criteria for what we allow in society then we should ban all air travel for non-work reasons. In fact, all travel to any destination for non-work reasons should be disallowed. Entire industries should be shuttered...surfing, biking, skiing. These all have an enormous footprint. Obviously I don't really think we should do this, but pointing out that we should be careful about picking on certain groups of people just because we don't like them.

No, you don't need a pickup to tow a tiny aluminum boat to go fishing. I'm well aware that there are many people driving huge trucks/SUVs around who don't need them. That's quite different, however, than saying no one has a legitimate use.* Bigger boats (around here we have ocean going vessels), gooseneck trailers, or heavy loads. If you're moving more than 5000 lbs you're more or less limited to a pickup/SUV.

That said, I'm all for policy to nudge people in a better direction. IMO the CDL route is too heavy handed, think a tax is more appropriate. But whatever, difference of opinion.

If the goal is reducing GHG (rather than lashing out at symbols of the culture war) then the number one thing we can and should do in the US is build denser cities - especially along the West Coast. What good does it do to drive around in a Tesla while insisting on suburban level density? This leads to urban sprawl and super commutes for many thousands of the less well off. Oh, right, we can feel smug in our elitism while enjoying our exclusive leafy neighborhoods. Dense cities result in less driving for everyone, and they also encourage smaller vehicles. Yet here I sit, in one of the supposedly "greenest" cities in the US, advocating for higher density while most of my neighbors fight to stop all development. It's messed up.

*About legitimate use: Does anyone need horses, or a big boat, or any other hobby requiring a big vehicle? Strictly speaking, no. But by definition no one "needs" any particular hobby or leisure activity. So if that's going to be the criteria for what we allow in society then we should ban all air travel for non-work reasons. In fact, all travel to any destination for non-work reasons should be disallowed. Entire industries should be shuttered...surfing, biking, skiing. These all have an enormous footprint. Obviously I don't really think we should do this, but pointing out that we should be careful about picking on certain groups of people just because we don't like them.

Seems like we both have similar goals but want slightly different approaches.regarding the pickup 'need' - let me phrase it this way; Pickups headline marketing has always been power (towing, hp, torque). But we already have the ability to design trucks that can tow 6,000 lbs safely and still get 30mpg. But they don't get built because clown consumers want acceleration and top speeds similar to sedans - yet they don't want to play by the same standards. 25 years ago it was unthinkable that you could buy a stock pickup and expect it to do 125mph+ or go 0-60 in 6.x seconds. Now that's the expectation.Fuel standards (as well as safety standards) exist in large part so that there's a level playing field. We've kept that field from being level, and in so doing we've allowed pickups to become more and more powerful with only modest increases in efficiency.

I think we're falling into a bit of a straw man fallacy with talk of banning travel or leisure activities. I'm not suggesting people not be allowed to own and transport horses, boats, or any other number of heavy items. Merely that despite all the marketing BS you don't need 300hp V8 and 500lb-ft of torque to safely transport these payloads. We did it before with half that. Maybe you are right and heavy taxing would be better than requiring CDLs. I would argue I'm not 'picking on' a certain group as much as suggesting that they not be given special treatment, which is what they get now IMO by having an entirely different standard.

Maybe you are right and heavy taxing would be better than requiring CDLs. I would argue I'm not 'picking on' a certain group as much as suggesting that they not be given special treatment, which is what they get now IMO by having an entirely different standard.

I say do both! Carbon tax is market economics at its finest. CDL would be completely consistent with how we offer licenses to fly private aircraft. You can fly whatever you want, but you need to be type certified.

Who the flip wants to spend $60K+ on a pickup truck and the load a bunch of gravel into the bed? Or firewood? Or dirt?

The vast majority of pickup trucks I've seen are purchased for their 'manly' cachet. They're never, or almost never used for carrying things around. That's why short bed trucks exist . . . they're useless for carrying stuff around, but it makes it easier to park your immaculate pickup truck at the office parking lot every morning.

Are they though? It seems like the majority of the pickup I see have a short bed...and a full-sized back seat. It doesn't appear that they're actually shorter than a traditional-cab PU with an 8 foot bed. (and how often does one see one of those any more!)

No, you don't need a pickup to tow a tiny aluminum boat to go fishing. I'm well aware that there are many people driving huge trucks/SUVs around who don't need them. That's quite different, however, than saying no one has a legitimate use.* Bigger boats (around here we have ocean going vessels), gooseneck trailers, or heavy loads. If you're moving more than 5000 lbs you're more or less limited to a pickup/SUV.

Well, actually grandfather was towing a 16' fiberglass boat with his mighty 100HP. I recognize that SOME people do have valid needs for big vehicles and more power to them. I guess until the licensing laws or economics of owning a big vehicle changes we'll see people going shopping or commuting in huge 4WD pickups and SUVs.

I'm a big fan of the right size tool for the job. Dinky trailers for hardware store trips are great as are proper trucks for moving 35,000 lb loads.

My Prius with a hitch and a small 1000-lb capacity trailer hauls literally everything I could possibly need to carry, and I'm an avid DIYer who regularly hauls sizable loads from the hardware store. I'm so glad that MMM opened my eyes to the possibility that I might not actually need a pickup truck!. That one article has saved me more money than any single page I've ever read.

I don't even have a hitch and trailer, but my Prius has brought home everything from my new (scratch and dent) clothes dryer to a new front door. I get some strange looks, but occasionally I pop open the hatch and let lumber hang out the back (properly flagged of course). Other times, no one can see it, but I'm heavily loaded with bags of sakrete or paving stones spread evenly over all the passenger seats. As a former pick up truck (and dump truck) owner, I miss my old girls, but I won't be buying another truck anytime soon (read NEVER). If I run across something I can't fit in my Prius, I can rent a truck for pennies on what it would cost me to keep a similar truck in the driveway.

Seems like we both have similar goals but want slightly different approaches.regarding the pickup 'need' - let me phrase it this way; Pickups headline marketing has always been power (towing, hp, torque). But we already have the ability to design trucks that can tow 6,000 lbs safely and still get 30mpg. But they don't get built because clown consumers want acceleration and top speeds similar to sedans - yet they don't want to play by the same standards. 25 years ago it was unthinkable that you could buy a stock pickup and expect it to do 125mph+ or go 0-60 in 6.x seconds. Now that's the expectation.Fuel standards (as well as safety standards) exist in large part so that there's a level playing field. We've kept that field from being level, and in so doing we've allowed pickups to become more and more powerful with only modest increases in efficiency.

I think we're falling into a bit of a straw man fallacy with talk of banning travel or leisure activities. I'm not suggesting people not be allowed to own and transport horses, boats, or any other number of heavy items. Merely that despite all the marketing BS you don't need 300hp V8 and 500lb-ft of torque to safely transport these payloads. We did it before with half that. Maybe you are right and heavy taxing would be better than requiring CDLs. I would argue I'm not 'picking on' a certain group as much as suggesting that they not be given special treatment, which is what they get now IMO by having an entirely different standard.

Agree specs have inflated over time. But I would argue this is true with most vehicles. It's interesting to watch a car model evolve over time, usually growing from small to large. Would love to see more midsize pickups (the Ford Ranger and Toyota Tacoma are like the 1/2 ton trucks of yesteryear). What I'd really like to see is a reasonable EV pickup. The Tesla concept truck is fugly IMO and appeals to a different set. I mean, they figured out how to make a great looking sports car that appealed to that market (rather than the previous weird looking EVs), hope they build a truck looking truck with long range and reasonable charge time (this seems to be improving with time).

The issue, I think, isn't with trucks specifically. It's with our car culture, and how we design our cities and infrastructure. Lots of luxury cars are equally as bad as trucks (mpg for the BMW 7 Series is about the same as many 1/2 ton trucks), and I've already said my bit about the #vanlife scene. My argument about leisure activities is, I admit, somewhat of a strawman, but also somewhat not - it's the logical conclusion of value judgements that aren't really consistent. E.g. take a look at the carbon footprint for an international flight.

Money is a proxy for value, so set annual registration fees (non-commercial) based on a function combining GVWR, engine displacement, and miles driven. And make this function non-linear so that those doing dumb things like driving massive engines huge distances get the message. Someone driving 30k miles/year in a F250 6.8L will reconsider when their registration bill comes to $5k. Same is true of someone using a super fast (and inefficient) sports car as a daily commuter. Those who really need (or want) such vehicles would have an incentive to find alternatives for daily driving (carpool, second vehicle, bike), and at the same time would have an incentive to buy the smaller more efficient engines.

Are they though? It seems like the majority of the pickup I see have a short bed...and a full-sized back seat. It doesn't appear that they're actually shorter than a traditional-cab PU with an 8 foot bed. (and how often does one see one of those any more!)

My FIL spent close to a year looking for a long bed, diesel, used pick-up at a good deal for using around his farm. I think he ended up going to another state when he found one. They're not easy to find.

Agree specs have inflated over time. But I would argue this is true with most vehicles. It's interesting to watch a car model evolve over time, usually growing from small to large. Would love to see more midsize pickups (the Ford Ranger and Toyota Tacoma are like the 1/2 ton trucks of yesteryear). What I'd really like to see is a reasonable EV pickup. The Tesla concept truck is fugly IMO and appeals to a different set. I mean, they figured out how to make a great looking sports car that appealed to that market (rather than the previous weird looking EVs), hope they build a truck looking truck with long range and reasonable charge time (this seems to be improving with time).

I'd love to see EV trucks - and I think holding them to a higher fuel efficiency standard would spur that innovation. There's a few in development, but as long as we allow them to (unfairly) compete with V8 Diesels it's going to be tough sledding.

The issue, I think, isn't with trucks specifically. It's with our car culture, and how we design our cities and infrastructure. Lots of luxury cars are equally as bad as trucks (mpg for the BMW 7 Series is about the same as many 1/2 ton trucks), and I've already said my bit about the #vanlife scene.

This is true, and a consequence of allowing fuel efficiency standards to be applied and averaged against a manufacturer's entire fleet, rather than individual models. Limit (or tax) the 7 series and 'super-cars' as well . Actually, the most logical way forward would probably be a carbon tax as well as a GVWR fee (which you brought up as well). This would also be applicable to the international travel you've mentioned. Wikipedia estimates a carbon footprint of roughly 90kg per hour per person (or ~500 miles) traveled, and most articles I've read say a carbon tax somewhere between $25 and $100 per ton would be a proper balance of economic incentive and ecological protection. Some quick math shows a flight from NYC to LA would yield about 0.44 metric tons of carbon/person. So using a 'middle value' of $50/metric ton each passenger would be assessed $22 for a one-way flight. I would support such a change.

Are they though? It seems like the majority of the pickup I see have a short bed...and a full-sized back seat. It doesn't appear that they're actually shorter than a traditional-cab PU with an 8 foot bed. (and how often does one see one of those any more!)

My FIL spent close to a year looking for a long bed, diesel, used pick-up at a good deal for using around his farm. I think he ended up going to another state when he found one. They're not easy to find.

The key here is "at a good deal". There are TONS of long-bed Diesels out there, but they hold their value more than most cars and cost a fortune to purchase new (typically $50k+). There's over a dozen within 50 miles of me right now, but most of them are over $40k (!) . One is selling for $9k but has 289,000 miles on it (a 2003 F250). Crazy.

The issue, I think, isn't with trucks specifically. It's with our car culture, and how we design our cities and infrastructure. Lots of luxury cars are equally as bad as trucks (mpg for the BMW 7 Series is about the same as many 1/2 ton trucks), and I've already said my bit about the #vanlife scene.

This is true, and a consequence of allowing fuel efficiency standards to be applied and averaged against a manufacturer's entire fleet, rather than individual models. Limit (or tax) the 7 series and 'super-cars' as well . Actually, the most logical way forward would probably be a carbon tax as well as a GVWR fee (which you brought up as well). This would also be applicable to the international travel you've mentioned. Wikipedia estimates a carbon footprint of roughly 90kg per hour per person (or ~500 miles) traveled, and most articles I've read say a carbon tax somewhere between $25 and $100 per ton would be a proper balance of economic incentive and ecological protection. Some quick math shows a flight from NYC to LA would yield about 0.44 metric tons of carbon/person. So using a 'middle value' of $50/metric ton each passenger would be assessed $22 for a one-way flight. I would support such a change.

Largely agree, though again would prefer a tax to be non-linear increasing exponentially. I don't want to unfairly punish the horse person, hobby farmer, etc. with a truck being used exclusively for it's designed purpose. Same for the car person with a sports car for occasional pleasure driving - I'm not a car person, don't really understand it, but don't begrudge someone enjoying an occasional weekend outing to wine country in their fancy car. And also the classic car folks (including classic vans) who aren't using these things for daily driving. Have your fun, but don't use them for commuting.

My Prius with a hitch and a small 1000-lb capacity trailer hauls literally everything I could possibly need to carry, and I'm an avid DIYer who regularly hauls sizable loads from the hardware store. I'm so glad that MMM opened my eyes to the possibility that I might not actually need a pickup truck!. That one article has saved me more money than any single page I've ever read.

I don't even have a hitch and trailer, but my Prius has brought home everything from my new (scratch and dent) clothes dryer to a new front door. I get some strange looks, but occasionally I pop open the hatch and let lumber hang out the back (properly flagged of course). Other times, no one can see it, but I'm heavily loaded with bags of sakrete or paving stones spread evenly over all the passenger seats. As a former pick up truck (and dump truck) owner, I miss my old girls, but I won't be buying another truck anytime soon (read NEVER). If I run across something I can't fit in my Prius, I can rent a truck for pennies on what it would cost me to keep a similar truck in the driveway.

Oh hell yeah, I do that all the time. I only hook up the trailer when it's absolutely necessary, like hauling home our new used, $100 fancy-pants refrigerator. I've carried enough 80-lb bags of concrete in the hatch to bottom out the springs. It's incredibly liberating to own a car with essentially zero resale value. I'd never haul half the stuff in a $50,000 pickup that I put in my Prius :D

The appeal of the pickup is that it offers what is no longer available in today's market: the fullsize, RWD, BOF sedan. Something that could seat 6 adults in comfort, a trunk that could swallow up two week's worth of luggage, pull an airstream on the weekend, and do it all in supreme comfort.

Today's buyer has found he can get just about the same thing in a truck. Leather for miles, a powerful V8, BOF for occasional towing, a long wheel base to soak up the highway miles and more utility than a sedan could ever offer. Throw a bed cover on it and you've got a secure 'trunk' replacement. Order the quad cab and the whole family can come along. But the bonus is 4WD, higher ground clearance for winter driving, easier entry/exit if you're older, and weekend-warrior utility without fouling up the interior of your sedan or hatchback.

While not my cup of tea, I don't begrudge the people that buy them. Those truck owners were the majority of people that made it in to work today, and were the only ones I saw in the parking lot with ramps and snow blowers (carefully) loaded in the back so they could take care of others after work.

What don't you understand? It's just human culture - a 'thing' gets associations, and over time those associations become desirable.

So you're not buying the truck because you need a truck - the three seat, long box, bare bones thing. You're buying it because you're a straight-talking, upright, outdoorsy independent... etc.

Except you also have a family, so you need 5 seats. And you're 40 so you want luxuries. And the payment is only $450 a month.

Someone asked a question the other day about 'what do you consider your luxury purchases' (this was on reddit I think), and I didn't answer because my thought was: the meaning of the word has gone. Everything we have is luxurious - instant hot water, fridges, everything. Central heating.

What's to understand? Car companies are there to make money; to do that they must convince people to give them money. They design stuff and market it, marketing drives sales. Have you seen how many big fucking chrome GMC, Chevy, Ford, Dodge adverts there are on every commercial break on North American TV? How constant the 'are you tired of that three year old vehicle on your driveway' ads are on the radio? Oh my god.

You're buying a truck because you wanted one when you were 18 but you have a family, and because the TV and radio and newspapers and bill boards all tell you you want one.

lol...I know it's not the point of your rant, but backup cameras are / have been mandatory in the USA for everything built in May 2018 or later.

Trucks are absurdly expensive these days though. I sold mine years ago after realizing that people asked me to use it more than I actually needed it myself. I really want a little utility trailer but have nowhere to put it. :(

The appeal of the pickup is that it offers what is no longer available in today's market: the fullsize, RWD, BOF sedan. Something that could seat 6 adults in comfort, a trunk that could swallow up two week's worth of luggage, pull an airstream on the weekend, and do it all in supreme comfort.

Bullshit. Minivans serve that role. They're not RWD, but RWD is a disadvantage in pretty much all real world situations.

Today's buyer has found he can get just about the same thing in a truck. Leather for miles, a powerful V8, BOF for occasional towing, a long wheel base to soak up the highway miles and more utility than a sedan could ever offer. Throw a bed cover on it and you've got a secure 'trunk' replacement. Order the quad cab and the whole family can come along. But the bonus is 4WD, higher ground clearance for winter driving, easier entry/exit if you're older, and weekend-warrior utility without fouling up the interior of your sedan or hatchback.

Throw a bed cover on a truck, and you've just invented . . . a minivan! Except a shittier minivan where there aren't removable rear seats in case you need them, and there's probably less space to store things as most truck beds aren't that high.

I have lived in Canada my whole life . . . including several years deep in Northern Ontario. Never needed 4WD or higher ground clearance for winter driving. You start to run into problems with ground clearance after about a foot and a half of snow has hit the road and not been plowed . . . how often does that come up where you live?

While not my cup of tea, I don't begrudge the people that buy them. Those truck owners were the majority of people that made it in to work today, and were the only ones I saw in the parking lot with ramps and snow blowers (carefully) loaded in the back so they could take care of others after work.

I just helped push an idiot in a truck with 4WD (who didn't know that 4WD means you can accelerate really well in snow, but can't stop or turn) off of a neighbour's front lawn today. I guess that the great ground clearance helped him more easily drive over the row of hedges before hitting the tree. No snow tires of course . . . because he had 4 wheel drive.

The appeal of the pickup is that it offers what is no longer available in today's market: the fullsize, RWD, BOF sedan. Something that could seat 6 adults in comfort, a trunk that could swallow up two week's worth of luggage, pull an airstream on the weekend, and do it all in supreme comfort.

"Bullshit. Minivans serve that role. They're not RWD, but RWD is a disadvantage in pretty much all real world situations."

You can call bullshit all you want, but full-size car traditionalists aren't cross-shopping Toyota Siennas as Park Avenue replacements. They are nowhere near a rolling bordello with V8 power, stirring lines and great visibility. Hell, the last Park Aves were V6/FWD and that drove guys to the Panther platform. The car guys I talk to that refuse to buy pickups/SUVs are turning to the 300, and they're not happy about it.

Today's buyer has found he can get just about the same thing in a truck. Leather for miles, a powerful V8, BOF for occasional towing, a long wheel base to soak up the highway miles and more utility than a sedan could ever offer. Throw a bed cover on it and you've got a secure 'trunk' replacement. Order the quad cab and the whole family can come along. But the bonus is 4WD, higher ground clearance for winter driving, easier entry/exit if you're older, and weekend-warrior utility without fouling up the interior of your sedan or hatchback.

"Throw a bed cover on a truck, and you've just invented . . . a minivan! Except a shittier minivan where there aren't removable rear seats in case you need them, and there's probably less space to store things as most truck beds aren't that high."

Except you're comparing capped truck storage to that of a minivan. I was pointing out a truck bed, even with cap, is 2 or 3 times larger than a sedan's trunk.

"I have lived in Canada my whole life . . . including several years deep in Northern Ontario. Never needed 4WD or higher ground clearance for winter driving. You start to run into problems with ground clearance after about a foot and a half of snow has hit the road and not been plowed . . . how often does that come up where you live?"

Here on the plains, it's not the accumulation, it's the drifts. I would not be home right now if I didn't have 4WD and snow tires. We're talking drift-busting on gravel. A week and a half ago we were snowed in for over 4 days. This very minute, they're pulling the plows off the roads, not because of snowfall, but because of high wind closing roads back in. The second you get out of city limits, it's every man for himself and the name of the game is ground clearance.

While not my cup of tea, I don't begrudge the people that buy them. Those truck owners were the majority of people that made it in to work today, and were the only ones I saw in the parking lot with ramps and snow blowers (carefully) loaded in the back so they could take care of others after work.

"I just helped push an idiot in a truck with 4WD (who didn't know that 4WD means you can accelerate really well in snow, but can't stop or turn) off of a neighbour's front lawn today. I guess that the great ground clearance helped him more easily drive over the row of hedges before hitting the tree. No snow tires of course . . . because he had 4 wheel drive."

Current minivans are getting in the high 20s mpg highway (FWD, non-hybrid). Typical tow capacity is around 3500 lbs.

The new F150 turbo diesel gets 30 mpg highway (2WD). And that's with 440 ft-lbs of torque and something like 11000 lbs towing capacity. The smaller turbocharged gasoline engines are also getting in the mid- to high-20s mpg, also with respectable towing.

Which is better? Depends on your needs. Lots of kids/people to drive around: Minivan. Have something to tow or bulky/messy/heavy stuff to haul: truck.

Current minivans are getting in the high 20s mpg highway (FWD, non-hybrid). Typical tow capacity is around 3500 lbs.

The new F150 turbo diesel gets 30 mpg highway (2WD). And that's with 440 ft-lbs of torque and something like 11000 lbs towing capacity. The smaller turbocharged gasoline engines are also getting in the mid- to high-20s mpg, also with respectable towing.

Which is better? Depends on your needs. Lots of kids/people to drive around: Minivan. Have something to tow or bulky/messy/heavy stuff to haul: truck.

Which comes back to the (whatever ratio) rule - how much time do you actually spend doing activity-X that needs the truck? And how much does it cost to own and run that vehicle, vs renting from UHaul for $20 every so often?

This is the thing, the constant argument on this forum - it is people who have a use for trucks, thinking like "we're" trying to take them away from "them".

If you have a genuine need for a truck, knock yourself out. If you want to carry horseshit because you're a small scale local market food box farmer? Cool. If you keep bees and need to carry hives? Cool. If you have horses and need to pull them? Cool. If you have a boat? Cool.

But for your *average* truck owner that uses the thing 'properly' once or twice or three times a year? Consider saving yourself some money, the environment some pollution, and use a rental every few months.

Or don't, and complain about the cost of fuel.

Or even worse - fucking blame the government for your poverty while you have this liability to drive around, costing you a huge car payment and $20 ($50? I don't even know, fuel prices have dropped like a rock lately) more every fill up.

And this takes me back up - most people on this site are not stupid. We don't need to argue amongst ourselves because most of us either think owning a truck is a bad idea *for most truck owners* or have a truck *that those other people would concede is not a bad idea*.

Spending a year's salary on a luxury item (over 5-8 years, of course) is what is stupid. Marketing is tricking people through repetition and, let's be honest, *shiny* into wasting a shit load of money. People on this site aren't those people.

The appeal of the pickup is that it offers what is no longer available in today's market: the fullsize, RWD, BOF sedan. Something that could seat 6 adults in comfort, a trunk that could swallow up two week's worth of luggage, pull an airstream on the weekend, and do it all in supreme comfort.

Today's buyer has found he can get just about the same thing in a truck. Leather for miles, a powerful V8, BOF for occasional towing, a long wheel base to soak up the highway miles and more utility than a sedan could ever offer. Throw a bed cover on it and you've got a secure 'trunk' replacement. Order the quad cab and the whole family can come along. But the bonus is 4WD, higher ground clearance for winter driving, easier entry/exit if you're older, and weekend-warrior utility without fouling up the interior of your sedan or hatchback.

While not my cup of tea, I don't begrudge the people that buy them. Those truck owners were the majority of people that made it in to work today, and were the only ones I saw in the parking lot with ramps and snow blowers (carefully) loaded in the back so they could take care of others after work.

You have described what a pickup can do for the typical family- but not why they need to be as powerful as they are, nor why they should be exempt from the more stringent fuel efficiency standards required for large sedans and station-wagons.

And as GuitarStv has already said, AWD/4WD is not necessary and generally offers no advantages for surface streets in incliment weather. A pickup is decidedly one of the less desirable vehicles in snowy conditions. But marketers love to showcase them plowing through snowbanks in closed courses that no one would say is proper driving.

I teach and coach in a small, rural community. The boys I deal with on our football team all believe that a truck is a sign of "coolness". They've all been brainwashed into this idea that you need a truck even though they never tow anything. We are losing more and more of them from school activities because they have to work low wage jobs to make their big truck payments. Then they have to "upgrade" to the next best truck when that one is paid for. When I see these guys 10 years later, they are still driving that same truck they spent their entire "youth" working for.

We started coaching them in financial literacy along with football, but it will take time.

Current minivans are getting in the high 20s mpg highway (FWD, non-hybrid). Typical tow capacity is around 3500 lbs.

The new F150 turbo diesel gets 30 mpg highway (2WD). And that's with 440 ft-lbs of torque and something like 11000 lbs towing capacity. The smaller turbocharged gasoline engines are also getting in the mid- to high-20s mpg, also with respectable towing.

Which is better? Depends on your needs. Lots of kids/people to drive around: Minivan. Have something to tow or bulky/messy/heavy stuff to haul: truck.

Which comes back to the (whatever ratio) rule - how much time do you actually spend doing activity-X that needs the truck? And how much does it cost to own and run that vehicle, vs renting from UHaul for $20 every so often?

This is the thing, the constant argument on this forum - it is people who have a use for trucks, thinking like "we're" trying to take them away from "them".

If you have a genuine need for a truck, knock yourself out. If you want to carry horseshit because you're a small scale local market food box farmer? Cool. If you keep bees and need to carry hives? Cool. If you have horses and need to pull them? Cool. If you have a boat? Cool.

But for your *average* truck owner that uses the thing 'properly' once or twice or three times a year? Consider saving yourself some money, the environment some pollution, and use a rental every few months.

Or don't, and complain about the cost of fuel.

Or even worse - fucking blame the government for your poverty while you have this liability to drive around, costing you a huge car payment and $20 ($50? I don't even know, fuel prices have dropped like a rock lately) more every fill up.

And this takes me back up - most people on this site are not stupid. We don't need to argue amongst ourselves because most of us either think owning a truck is a bad idea *for most truck owners* or have a truck *that those other people would concede is not a bad idea*.

Spending a year's salary on a luxury item (over 5-8 years, of course) is what is stupid. Marketing is tricking people through repetition and, let's be honest, *shiny* into wasting a shit load of money. People on this site aren't those people.

I agree that spending a huge amount on a luxury truck is silly, but this is true for all luxury vehicles. The depreciation is terrible. If you need a truck for truck things, then get a used basic trim vehicle and save yourself a bundle.

The argument about saving the environment is less clear. Compared to a huge V8, sure. But the Ford Ecoboost engines are growing in popularity and some of these are out economizing (or are similar to) minivans and other vehicles long considered more eco-friendly (Subaru comes to mind).

out saving the environment is less clear. Compared to a huge V8, sure. But the Ford Ecoboost engines are growing in popularity and some of these are out economizing (or are similar to) minivans and other vehicles long considered more eco-friendly (Subaru comes to mind).

Its not the most fuel efficient pickups that draw my ire, the ones that are approaching 30mpg - its those V8/V10 models that get 19 mpg highway yet are used as passenger vehicles but treated as commercial vehicles (sans CDL or registration requirements).

out saving the environment is less clear. Compared to a huge V8, sure. But the Ford Ecoboost engines are growing in popularity and some of these are out economizing (or are similar to) minivans and other vehicles long considered more eco-friendly (Subaru comes to mind).

Its not the most fuel efficient pickups that draw my ire, the ones that are approaching 30mpg - its those V8/V10 models that get 19 mpg highway yet are used as passenger vehicles but treated as commercial vehicles (sans CDL or registration requirements).

The appeal of the pickup is that it offers what is no longer available in today's market: the fullsize, RWD, BOF sedan. Something that could seat 6 adults in comfort, a trunk that could swallow up two week's worth of luggage, pull an airstream on the weekend, and do it all in supreme comfort.

Bullshit. Minivans serve that role. They're not RWD, but RWD is a disadvantage in pretty much all real world situations.

Today's buyer has found he can get just about the same thing in a truck. Leather for miles, a powerful V8, BOF for occasional towing, a long wheel base to soak up the highway miles and more utility than a sedan could ever offer. Throw a bed cover on it and you've got a secure 'trunk' replacement. Order the quad cab and the whole family can come along. But the bonus is 4WD, higher ground clearance for winter driving, easier entry/exit if you're older, and weekend-warrior utility without fouling up the interior of your sedan or hatchback.

Throw a bed cover on a truck, and you've just invented . . . a minivan! Except a shittier minivan where there aren't removable rear seats in case you need them, and there's probably less space to store things as most truck beds aren't that high.

I have lived in Canada my whole life . . . including several years deep in Northern Ontario. Never needed 4WD or higher ground clearance for winter driving. You start to run into problems with ground clearance after about a foot and a half of snow has hit the road and not been plowed . . . how often does that come up where you live?

While not my cup of tea, I don't begrudge the people that buy them. Those truck owners were the majority of people that made it in to work today, and were the only ones I saw in the parking lot with ramps and snow blowers (carefully) loaded in the back so they could take care of others after work.

I just helped push an idiot in a truck with 4WD (who didn't know that 4WD means you can accelerate really well in snow, but can't stop or turn) off of a neighbour's front lawn today. I guess that the great ground clearance helped him more easily drive over the row of hedges before hitting the tree. No snow tires of course . . . because he had 4 wheel drive.

Today, yesterday, last week, I was late a couple of times earlier in the winter because they don't plow till later than I leave. Yes I wish I 4WD because I live in a rural area and we literally have 13 plows for 1/10 of the Buffalo population and a larger space.

Current minivans are getting in the high 20s mpg highway (FWD, non-hybrid). Typical tow capacity is around 3500 lbs.

The new F150 turbo diesel gets 30 mpg highway (2WD). And that's with 440 ft-lbs of torque and something like 11000 lbs towing capacity. The smaller turbocharged gasoline engines are also getting in the mid- to high-20s mpg, also with respectable towing.

Comparing gasoline to diesel consumption? The numbers read a bit differently if we compare apples to apples instead:

Current minivans are getting in the high 20s mpg highway (FWD, non-hybrid). Typical tow capacity is around 3500 lbs.

The new F150 turbo diesel gets 30 mpg highway (2WD). And that's with 440 ft-lbs of torque and something like 11000 lbs towing capacity. The smaller turbocharged gasoline engines are also getting in the mid- to high-20s mpg, also with respectable towing.

Comparing gasoline to diesel consumption? The numbers read a bit differently if we compare apples to apples instead:

People drive trucks in 2WD mode unless they need the extra traction and then switch to 4WD (full-time rather than AWD) if they have it. So 4WD isn't safer for everyday driving. For traction purposes many folks can get away with 2WD with the optional E-Locker rather than 4WD.

Today, yesterday, last week, I was late a couple of times earlier in the winter because they don't plow till later than I leave. Yes I wish I 4WD because I live in a rural area and we literally have 13 plows for 1/10 of the Buffalo population and a larger space.

As a native of a less-than-urban part of Upstate New York, I feel obligated to point out that while 4-wheel drive is nice to have in the winter, it's not the main thing that makes a vehicle driveable when there's a bunch of snow on the roads.

In my experience, what "matters" in rough order of priority in a significant snowstorm:1) Ground clearance (This is pretty binary - your vehicle either has enough ground clearance relative to the snow depth or it doesn't)2) Driving intelligently - maintain speed and following distances that are appropriate for the reduced traction3) Appropriate tires (snow tires DO help significantly with traction)4) 4-wheel drive

In that order - i.e. 4-wheel drive is the *least* important of the above. For the overwhelming majority of situations, snow tires or chains, plus a basic understanding of how to drive in the winter are more than enough assuming you have enough ground clearance relative to the snow depth.

4-wheel drive has its uses, but for the majority of "normal" winter driving scenarios it's not the main thing that lets you make it to your destination safely. If I live in an area where the plows are slow to arrive, I'm not so concerned with 4WD - I'm going to make sure my vehicle has sufficient ground clearance and I'll certainly switch to snow tires at the start of the snow season in early November.

Just to add to what js82 said - there are literally dozens of real world and controlled tests comparing a vehicle equipped with winter tires and 2wd to one with all-season and AWD.

Snow tires wins out in a landslide in every metric (stopping, acceleration, cornering, driving up hills... on snow or on ice)- its not even close. Snow tires are such a difference that they are mandatory in most places in Canada and Scandinavia during the winter months, yet 2wd vehicles remain the norm.

Yeah, yeah... the answer is 'effective lobbying' - but there's no damn reason why pickups can continue to be sold in this country with sub-20mpg fuel efficiency. We could mandate 30mpg from trucks and they would *still* have more power than the pickups of a generation ago.

Many (most?) of the newer 1/2 ton pickups on the road today get > 20 mpg highway, some far better even city/highway combined. The bigger naturally aspirated V8s don't fair as well. Of course, heavier duty pickups (3/4 ton, 1 ton, etc.) are less efficient, but you can't get the carry/tow capacities up without also beefing up the vehicle.

Yes, IMHO we shouldn't allow such vehicles to be sold for non-commercial purposes.

"We shouldn't allow?"

Really? You want the government deciding what we can and can't buy, and for what purposes we can use what we are allowed to buy?

I'm sure that if you have influence with someone in the right commissariat, you'll be able get something written into the next 5-year plan of the central committee that will force citizens to do as you think they should.

Er, unless you live in the USA. We have prefer freedom, even if everyone doesn't do as you think they should.

Today's buyer has found he can get just about the same thing in a truck. Leather for miles, a powerful V8, BOF for occasional towing, a long wheel base to soak up the highway miles and more utility than a sedan could ever offer. Throw a bed cover on it and you've got a secure 'trunk' replacement. Order the quad cab and the whole family can come along. But the bonus is 4WD, higher ground clearance for winter driving, easier entry/exit if you're older, and weekend-warrior utility without fouling up the interior of your sedan or hatchback.

Throw a bed cover on a truck, and you've just invented . . . a minivan! Except a shittier minivan where there aren't removable rear seats in case you need them, and there's probably less space to store things as most truck beds aren't that high.

Umm, no. Just...no.

A mini van is often not a substitute for a truck.

I drive a truck. When I go to the office (which is rare, since I generally work from home), my truck sits among many others, as well as tons of SUVs.

Some of the "I know what's best for you" scolds in this group would probably disapprove of my choice.

At least once a month, on the weekends, I use my truck to transport rescue dogs from rural/small town areas to the city, where they can be more easily adopted. When Houston flooded about a year and a half ago, I made probably a dozen runs to Houston to San Antonio. I hauled supplies on the way into the city, then transported abandoned/lost dogs back so they could get treatment/shelter. I simply could not have done that with a minivan, which just would not be up to the task of transporting large number of dog crates, as well as supplies.

Those are just a few examples of the many times I've used my truck as a truck. Just because someone parks in a business office parking lot from M-F doesn't mean that they don't use their truck as a truck. Nor does it mean they need your approval of their vehicle choice.

The kicker is, I probably use less gas in an average year than most Prius/Econobox drivers do.

Yeah, yeah... the answer is 'effective lobbying' - but there's no damn reason why pickups can continue to be sold in this country with sub-20mpg fuel efficiency. We could mandate 30mpg from trucks and they would *still* have more power than the pickups of a generation ago.

Many (most?) of the newer 1/2 ton pickups on the road today get > 20 mpg highway, some far better even city/highway combined. The bigger naturally aspirated V8s don't fair as well. Of course, heavier duty pickups (3/4 ton, 1 ton, etc.) are less efficient, but you can't get the carry/tow capacities up without also beefing up the vehicle.

Yes, IMHO we shouldn't allow such vehicles to be sold for non-commercial purposes.

"We shouldn't allow?"

Really? You want the government deciding what we can and can't buy, and for what purposes we can use what we are allowed to buy?

I'm sure that if you have influence with someone in the right commissariat, you'll be able get something written into the next 5-year plan of the central committee that will force citizens to do as you think they should.

Er, unless you live in the USA. We have prefer freedom, even if everyone doesn't do as you think they should.

Americans prefer freedom? Lol.

That must be why it's perfectly legal to smoke weed after paying for some sex, right? Or free to have a drink after enlisting in the army at 18? Or to be freely represented in government without anti-democratic policies like gerrymandering? Freedom to vote at 16? Freedom from unreasonable lay-offs at work? Freedom to be treated the same way by police and the legal system regardless of the colour of your skin? Freedom to move from job to job without worrying about losing the basic human right of health care? Freedom to leave your country without paying expatriation tax? Freedom do do what you want with your body . . . and get an abortion if you choose to? :P

Americans certainly talk more about freedom that the members of any other country I can think of . . . but when you put aside the nonsensical "FREEDOM!!!111" advertising, the US is much like any other western country. You're free to do some stuff and you're not free to do other stuff. You have some freedoms that aren't enjoyed in other countries, and you lack some freedoms that are enjoyed in other countries. Don't get me wrong, there's a lot of great stuff in the American system that should be pointed to as beneficial to personal freedom . . . but there's also a lot of room for improvement.

There are of course, also very tricky questions to answer when discussing freedom that tend to be glossed over and ignored by the libertarian crowd. Pollution controls prevent large companies upstream from just dumping toxic waste into the river that goes through my back yard. Is it more free for the controls to be removed allowing the business to do whatever they want, or for the controls to be in place allowing me to enjoy the land that I own without fear of toxicity?